Do the TV license office have any legal right to contact me?

Stercus Accidit · 11-10-2013 2:57pm #1

I do not own a TV nor do I plan to any time in the future, I replied to one letter from the TV licence office to this effect about a year ago, and signed it.

Today I received another letter about the same, asking me to contact them. I tried by phone twice and got no-where, I have since e-mailed them to the following effect;

The crux of the matter is I don't want them contacting me, they have a signed letter telling them I do not own a TV. The onus is on me to contact them again now, with great difficulty so far, with unknown ramifications if I do not. The bulk of the letter is on how to pay them, obviously because I need to nudge nudge wink wink because I'm a bould boy and they know well. :rolleyes:

If I ask them to NOT contact me, do they have a right to contact me in future against my wishes? Do I have a right not to be contacted? What are the limits?

Thanks and sorry if this is a tired subject for you guys.

Cody Pomeray · 11-10-2013 4:11pm

s.147 of Part 9 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 provides --

147.—(1) An officer of an issuing agent may, if and whenever he
or she thinks proper so to do, cause a special notice in writing
(accompanied by or having annexed to it a form of declaration) to
be given personally to, or be served by registered post on, any person
requiring that person, within 28 days after the service of the notice
on him or her—

The situation is reasonably similar to not sending your little ones to school.

If the kids are not returning entries on the Minister for Education's roll books (akin to making a statement, per above), there is a rebuttable presumption that the parents are guilty of an offence, unless you can show the kids are getting a satisfactory education at home, or there is some other lawful excuse behind their non-attendance.

There is a similar rebuttable presumption (subsection 4 of S.147) if you do not enter a return for the television licence man.

It seems like a legitimate exercise to check in on individuals, from time to time, to ascertain whether there has been any changes to their circumstances. Although I can accept it's a pain in the arse.

Stercus Accidit · 11-10-2013 4:20pm

Thanks, this letter was not registered nor was it personally issued to me, it also made no mention of a 28 day notice period and was not attached to a returnable document.

The previous one did and included a form to return, so this new one is not binding it would seem and they are just fishing.

I'd rather they didn't fish with me so I wonder if I can request not to be contacted bar the circumstances you described.

Cody Pomeray · 11-10-2013 4:23pm

Oh yeah I know the letter you're talking about, is it that one split down the middle between Irish and English, with some vague comments about sending them an email or something?

I never reply to that.

That's a slightly different question, I'd have to think about it.

Straight off, I would venture that they might not be in the right, and you should contact them to complain. But maybe some other users would be able to offer alternative ideas.

Carawaystick · 13-10-2013 1:12am

Invoice them for your time!

Or else foi a copy of the last letter you sent and post that back

johnnyskeleton · 13-10-2013 1:29am

Carawaystick wrote: »

Invoice them for your time!

Ben Gilroy it up! €1,750 every time they use his name as breach of copyright!

LoanShark · 13-10-2013 1:34am

Don't email them!!!!

Aren't we going to have a new system where as we will have a communication tax??
Also send Your letters in handwriting and then you can say you posses a computer too..

slimjimmc · 13-10-2013 1:04pm

LoanShark wrote: »

Don't email them!!!!

Aren't we going to have a new system where as we will have a communication tax??
Also send Your letters in handwriting and then you can say you posses a computer too..

Had a good laugh at that. Thanks.

What's proposed is a Broadcasting Charge, payable regardless of what devices you have or none. Hand writing letters to pretend you (don't) have a computer won't help you avoid it when it is enacted.

OP, people's circumstances change and An Post are not to know if you got a TV since last year or not. It's not excessive to get a letter once a year reminding people of their obligation to get a licence (in case you need one). If there's no form to return then just ignore it.

Zambia · 13-10-2013 1:24pm

If a hardware store sends you a flyer once a year you wouldn't care I am sure all sorts send you stuff on a more frequent basis.

If you do not use or own a tv well then who cares what they send you? It's not like you can be fined if you don't have a tv. If they ever send an inspector bring him in to see the house problem sorted.

The fact you are so annoyed they write to you makes me believe you have some access to TV. "The lady doth protest to much" sort of thing.

Cody Pomeray · 13-10-2013 9:07pm

I wish people would quote something original from Hamlet, or Shakespeare, or you know, the law...

I am not saying that the OP definitely has a right to pursue his life free from (non statutory) communications from the television licence man.

However, if it causes the OP distress to receive these letters, perhaps because s/he feels the victim of deliberate targeting, I would consider the strong protection provided to the householder under the constitutional doctrine of the inviolability of the dwelling as a special place of refuge from the cruelty of the world to be engaged (DPP v. Barnes; Sullivan v. Boylan & McCartan).

The United States has a similar doctrine and cynics of the OP's right to live free from this sort of unsolicited - nay! proscribed - communication might look at Rowan v US Post Office 39 U.S.C #3008 (1997).

Rowan was a householder who was sick and tired of junk mail. The US Supreme Court said:

The Court has traditionally respected the right of a householder to bar, by order or notice, solicitors, hawkers, and peddlers from his property. See Martin v. Struthers, supra; cf. Hall v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 72, 49 S.E.2d 369, appeal dismissed, 335 U.S. 875 (1948). In this case, the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.

To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass, and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication, and thus bar its entering his home.

So although it is not clear cut that an Irish householder has a right to stop receiving junk mail - especially where that mail originates from the government or its agents - I find the above dictum in Rowan, coupled with the constitutional doctrine on the inviolability of the dwelling place, to be particularly compelling.

13-10-2013 10:04pm

The inviolability of the dwelling has absolutely nothing to do with being able to selectively reject post.

If you were willing to completely exclude an post employees entirely then that's another matter. But if you are willing to receive post then you can't complain about the kind of post you receive.

Cody Pomeray · 13-10-2013 10:15pm

I've provided a link to Rowan which I find compelling by analogy to a television or a radio dial.

If you disagree fine, but don't expect anyone to take your word for it based on a vacuous statement of dissent.

13-10-2013 11:41pm

But the analogy isn't compelling.

A more apt analogy would be that a homeowner has an absolute constitutional right to block out one channel or program.

The turning off the dial metaphor is analogous to refusing all post.

It's plain and obvious that the two situations are not at all analogous.

An post doesn't have a monopoly on postal delivery services in Ireland, so by sticking with them you have to accept communication from them.

The hypothetical homeowner could always just engage a private remailing service for incoming mail or private delivery service for outgoing. But most people stick with an post because they are the most viable option. And that comes with certain downsides.

Cody Pomeray · 14-10-2013 12:11am

What you're suggesting doesn't make sense.

In Rowan, on the topic of the householder's right to be "the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold", the US Supreme Court did not rely on the "monopoly" (arguable) of the U.S. Postal Service.

In any case, in a previous U.S. case, Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), the court applied the same rationale to a private distributor of pamphlets. In weighing the right to communicate/ 1st amendment against what we, in this jurisdiction, call the inviolability of the dwelling place, the court found the greater protection ought to be afforded to the latter.

In the U.S., which I only raise in light of the similarity with which the constitutions of our two jurisdictions lay at the inviolability of the home as a refuge from the world, the case law is pretty clear.

I re-emphasize that I do not present this as final evidence that what I find persuasive is fact. No, it is merely persuasive. It is a lot more persuasive than mere unsubstantiated opinion, with no recourse to case nor statute.

14-10-2013 9:32am

But you can't point to anything in Irish jurisprudence that would indicate a willingness for such a radical departure.

The inviolability of the dwelling in Irish law is concerned with physical violation, not unwanted communication.

That is why if you want to try and apply this issue to the post you would have to exclude the actual postal worker and not just be selective about what post you receive.

Cody Pomeray · 14-10-2013 10:24am

234 wrote: »

The inviolability of the dwelling in Irish law is concerned with physical violation, not unwanted communication.

No it isn't.

I already mentioned Sullvan v. McCartan & Boylan. I would also refer to the right to be let alone, which was a strong feature of both U.S. cases, Rowan and Martin, and which is an unenumerated constitutional right our own Supreme Court has affirmed in In the matter of a ward of court (1995), quoting re Conroy (1985)

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law … ‘The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity to be let alone’.

Taking this in light of the inviolability of the dwelling, I consider American jurisprudence to be relevant, indeed, compelling.

Is this conclusive evidence that the Irish courts would affirm the OP's right to live free from non-statutory government correspondence which he has attempted to bar from his home? No it is not. You need to understand this is a legal discussion forum, where people put forward points of discussion which they find interesting.

As legal practitioners, individuals are expected to possess adequate cognitive skills to draw parallels, and substantively coterminous points of jurisprudence from which they may take inference. To reduce legal discussion to regurgitating juridic dicta is to reduce the lawyer to the intellectual equivalent of a photocopier. Be whichever you wish.

14-10-2013 12:02pm

First, taking the Irish jurisprudence: Barnes was concerned with physical violation, that cannot be disputed. Sullivan concerned a physical picket outside the applicant's house and conduct that amounted to harassment.

Neither of these bears any resemblance to the type of issues that the OP is raising.

Granted, there are some dicta that might be creatively applied but the circumstances where they have been raised thus far have been dramatically different to those posed by the OP.

So it should be acknowledged that asserting that he has a right in the manner suggested involves a very large degree of speculation that isn't grounded in anything firm.

Secondly, even though Ireland sometimes resorts to US constitutional jurisprudence there is quite a gulf between what has been decided here thus far and what you are suggesting US law is.

Finally, even if there was such a wide ranging right to exclude others on a constitutional level it would still not be helpful in this particular instance.

If the OP wished to exclude an post workers he would have to do it entirely (something more appropriately accomplished under the law of trespass to land).

If you are happy to receive post from an post then you are also accepting that they may occasionally contact you through the medium of their own service. If you wish to assert a wide-ranging right to be let alone (assuming it takes such a wide form) then you can't be so selective as to say that I will only take certain kinds of post, you can't dictate the terms of an post's service to them.

I believe that the proper remedy if you wish to be let alone in situations like this is trespass to land. An established remedy. I do not believe that the courts would be willing to expand the inviolability of the dwelling so dramatically where there is a perfectly fitting non-constitutional remedy. This is in keeping with the courts preference to resolve issues in a non-constitutional manner if possible.

Edit:

In re a ward of court the SC referred to re conroy as involving a dual right to your own person and a more general privacy right. The live issue in the case was the bodily one and and privacy as it applied to conroy was only approved in a byline and not expanded upon.

But again, the OP could easily ensure his privacy by refusing access to an post. His privacy is not violated where he allows an post to deliver but is unhappy with select pieces of post.

StupidLikeAFox · 14-10-2013 12:14pm

Put the letter in the bin and move on with your life

Cody Pomeray · 14-10-2013 12:55pm

@234, you're doing nothing but rehashing the basic narrative of those cases in a brief synopsis.

i already know the synopses. that is why i raise them.

more photocopier legalism.

If people only based their arguments on exact carbon copies of case law, the courts would be mostly empty except for drink driving offences.

I can see there is a minority of opinion on the legal discussion forum that basically says "if you can't give a carbon copy Irish precedent, it isn't valid".

Firstly, this mindset fails to understand the object of a legal discussion. We are not here providing legal advice or representation, and guaranteeing outcomes accordingly. No, only to discuss the law, and naturally therefore, some interesting, plausible scenarios.

Secondly, it is a pretty shocking waste of a legal education to emerge unable to draw or appreciate materially coextensive legal principles, across common law jurisdictions. Yet it is rife. I make this as a general statement, be it online or offline. This attitude gets you nowhere.

I am quite sure that prior to Sullivan v. boylan, the DPP v. barnes, or any of the other case law mentioned in this thread, there would have been online posters scoffing at the arguments raised, if they had been espoused at any level beneath the bench. Accordingly, almost everything is to be treated as baseless until a judge formulates it 'word for word', and the rest of the mortal realm can get along with defending drink driving cases. me right now ----> :rolleyes:

14-10-2013 1:27pm

I only intend on saying this.

The flip side to what you are saying is that a good legal education teaches you to identify legitimate differences, to notice strained analogies.

As much as creative thinking and recognising the logical extension of an argument is important, so is being able to know when to stop. To know when the material that you base your arguments on no longer supports your thesis even in a foundational way.

This is not "photocopier legalism" but prudent and well-constructed argument.

Cody Pomeray · 14-10-2013 1:50pm

You haven't made an argument.

You synopsised the already well reported cases I mentioned.

For example, In Sullivan v. Boylan, Hogan J cited Hardiman J in Barnes. The case of the mortifying lorry considered the case of the physical threat of the intruder.

I can imagine the grimaces if anyone had ever tried to establish a relationship between the two on this sub-forum, prior to that judgement, its crystal clear rationale notwithstanding.

Intellectual profanity to the legal stencil artist! Jurisprudence-by-numbers, cruelly usurped.

drkpower · 14-10-2013 2:30pm

234 wrote: »

........... so is being able to know when to stop.......

Precisely.

Put two good law students in a room with some heavy textbooks and both will be able to create an argument, even a plausible one, on one side or the other. And that's fine and well.

What to do with those arguments within the confines of a real-life practicalities is where the real trouble is, and what practising law is actually about. So, while one can certainly make an argument that a court might recognise the extension of a constitutional right, or might follow the approach of another jurisdiction, or might do many other things, that can be effectively useless for the client with financial restraints (almost all!) or without the emotional wherewithall to bring a case with such inherent uncertainty (almost all!).

So, to take this case, might Cody be right? Yes.
Does it matter in the real world? No.

OldNotWIse · 14-10-2013 2:38pm

Are you obliged to let inspectors in?

Stercus Accidit · 14-10-2013 3:05pm

Zambia wrote: »

If a hardware store sends you a flyer once a year you wouldn't care I am sure all sorts send you stuff on a more frequent basis.

If you do not use or own a tv well then who cares what they send you? It's not like you can be fined if you don't have a tv. If they ever send an inspector bring him in to see the house problem sorted.

The fact you are so annoyed they write to you makes me believe you have some access to TV. "The lady doth protest to much" sort of thing.

Are you calling me a liar and a tax dodger on a public forum?

When people assume others must be dishonest it may be because they are dishonest themselves.

Fred Swanson · 14-10-2013 5:22pm

This post has been deleted.

Cody Pomeray · 14-10-2013 9:21pm

drkpower wrote: »

Precisely.

Put two good law students in a room with some heavy textbooks and both will be able to create an argument, even a plausible one, on one side or the other. And that's fine and well.

What to do with those arguments within the confines of a real-life practicalities is where the real trouble is, and what practising law is actually about. So, while one can certainly make an argument that a court might recognise the extension of a constitutional right, or might follow the approach of another jurisdiction, or might do many other things, that can be effectively useless for the client with financial restraints (almost all!) or without the emotional wherewithall to bring a case with such inherent uncertainty (almost all!).

So, to take this case, might Cody be right? Yes.
Does it matter in the real world? No.

1. I am trying to contribute to a legal discussion. I am not interested in peddling my advice like some tout on the steps on a courthouse. I am not interested in promising someone a golden ticket to a constitutional remedy, either. There are plenty of charters reminding us that's not what we're here for, so i don't see how you can have a problem with it.

2. It should be clear to everyone except the most disinterested layman and the rural solicitor that attempts to chart and delineate the extent and constraints of our laws, including resort to case and jurisprudence, are actually a fundamental, valid exercise that can be of immense practical concern to the superior courts. It is just silly to dismiss a topic as academic trivia when it forms a well-known feature of the recent juridical landscape, at least in the USA. Rowan was decided by the US Supreme Court, not some obscure mooting semi-final.

I have tried to make my points by comparing the US constitutional position on the sanctity of the dwelling place with that of Irish case law. I do not invoke Barnes to compare receiving a distressing letter with being faced with a burgler. I invoke Barnes and Boylan to underline the importance of the inviolability of the dwelling. Having done that, i then introduce Rowan, and ask why an extension of protection against other forms of intrusion should not apply here, citing further the right of the person to be let alone, as set out in Kennedy and re a Minor, and drawn from the preamble of the constitution.

All of this seems very reasonable and rational to me. I genuinely don't see why a pursuit like this should cause an issue in a legal discussion forum .

drkpower · 14-10-2013 10:05pm

That's all fascinating Cody, but how might it assist someone in a hypothetical situation like the OP's? What might someone like the OP be able to do with that advice?

That's the bit you are missing.

Cody Pomeray · 14-10-2013 10:25pm

I think you're the one missing the point.

I am discussing possible constructions of the law as they relate to the OP. We're not here to give legal advice, as per the (¯`·._.·Charters·._.·´¯).

Also, the OP has said nothing to indicate his OP is hypothetical.

drkpower · 14-10-2013 10:36pm

We could go round and round on whether what you have posted is legal advice, and whether going a step further and postulating practical options for the OP (or a hypothetical person in the OPs position) is legal advice. I don't really want to go down that road.

My point is not that you shouldn't engage in speculation as to how a court might ultimately determine this kind of issue; that's all fine as far as it goes and more power to you for engaging in that kind of acaðemic discussion. My point is that, while fascinating, it is of little or no use to the typical person who raises this kind of issue.

That is the distinction it have been drawing between law as an academic discipline, and law as a practical discipline. They are quite often quite different things.

Cody Pomeray · 14-10-2013 10:43pm

change the record tbh.

Grolschevik · 15-10-2013 10:48am

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It should be clear to everyone except the most disinterested layman and the rural solicitor

Nice condescension, Cody...

Do the TV license office have any legal right to contact me?

Comments